The Frankish Reich

Thank you. I know understand. It is "woke" if it has a black person or a gay person in a major role of the sort previously played by a white straight person.

I'm saying a movie clearly avoiding naming a geopolitical opponent of the United States - Iran - as "the enemy." Why? Well, I suppose it was to not offend Iranian Americans or even Muslims in general. It made for some stupid scenes. I actually thought I'd missed the line where "Iran" was named when I saw it, so I had to look it up when I got home. That's usually what we call "woke" - the desire not to offend someone, anyone, even if it's in a movie where it only makes sense to name names. So it gets a pass because overall it is viewed as a patriotic American movie. I'm watching another series now called "Hijack" on Apple TV. Pretty good thriller. Straightforward old-fashioned scripting linear scripting. A middle eastern airline (clearly a stand-in for Emirates) is the victim of the hijacking. I'm gonna guess that the original draft had a politically motivated 9/11 type hijacking. But they go out of their way to make the Arab characters generally pro-law enforcement and the bad guys are (you guessed it) a British drug and human trafficking gang. Got that? Human traffickers are now the only acceptable villains. It is hard to make sense of the plot with an ordinary crime syndicate as the villains - what, they're going to go on a suicide hijack mission for a criminal syndicate, not for a political belief?

No. Ideally, we would put both Trump and Biden in the rear view mirror and move on. Hypothetical: let's say Biden runs and loses in the electoral count. There are credible reports of voters in, say, Atlanta who were prevented from voting. O.K. for Biden to declare martial law, bring in federal officers to oversee a re-do in Georgia? O.K. for Biden to say that Kamala should refuse to certify Georgia's electoral slate? What if the pivotal state this time is one with a democratic legislature and governor?

Off the top of my head: - Relying, even in part, on the Steele Dossier was wrong. It was a political document put together at the behest (and apparent expense) of a political campaign, with its true provenance concealed by using a series of other funders (a Seattle law firm tied to the Democratic Party, etc.). That should not have happened. - The Trump campaign did collude with a Russian operative, and if they didn't know she was a Russian operative (the meeting that was mischaracterized as being about "Russian adoptions") they certainly should have known. - Jeff Sessions appointed Mueller to do the investigation. He issued a report, largely clearing Trump of actual collusion, and taking a rather agnostic stand with respect to obstruction. The document speaks for itself. There were convictions, properly obtained, involving important Trump campaign officials and the core basis for the investigation (Manafort). At that point it becomes a question of nomenclature - what is "collusion," since that isn't a legal term. None of that was DOJ's finest day. But again: it can't hold a candle to an attempt to cling to the presidency by cynically urging states to drum up slates of fake electors and urging the VP (with an intimidating mob outside and inside the Capitol) to do something clearly inappropriate and contrary to the rule of law. There you have it. I'm not excusing anyone for anything. I'm just pointing out that in life we need to recognize that not every wrong is of equal magnitude. Oh, well, now we're really grasping at straws. Yes, even worse! Worse too than Aaron Burr shooting Hamilton!!

I know woke when I see it. "The enemy" agrees.

I see you've just chided another poster for lack of reading comprehension. With that in mind, I urge you to re-read the post you responded to here: "Just not of the same order of magnitude [as what Trump did]" Not "acceptable." But does "not of the same order of magnitude" = "acceptable?"

I guess I'm not understanding what counts as "woke." One of the earlier MI movies edited out scenes of urban decay in Shanghai because China didn't like that. Woke? I guess not. Female fighter pilot in Maverick. Woke? I guess not. Black woman with red wig cast as wholly mythical creature in The Little Mermaid. Woke!!

I have lived in a couple small towns. And I don't mean tourist/resort towns or quaint college towns. One near the southwest border, one in the midwest. I knew many good people in both. But I was kind of shocked to find that what I used to think were "urban problems" (like drug addiction) were just as, if not more, prevalent in those towns. EDIT: yeah, its from the NYT, so feel free to brush it aside. But it kind of captures what's going on in many, many small towns across America, and with a great degree of empathy: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/opinion/rural-america-economy-revive.html

So ... they waited until she was 18. She made a decision she regrets. That's on you, not the docs.

You mean the movie where "the enemy" was pretty obviously Iran (maybe Afghanistan) but the film makers steadfastly refused to name the country? It was referred to only as "the enemy." In other words, the wokeiest move of 2022 films. That doesn't count?

It sounds random and not selected by Aldean. I don't know if the producers of the video knew about that history. I'm guessing that you'll find something racist went on in every southern courthouse that has been standing more than 60 years or so. Not everything about our small southern towns is worthy of praise.

Just not of the same order of magnitude as contriving a phony legal theory to send the certified electoral states back to the states so they could say, geez, I dunno, maybe our election was flawed, so maybe we'll just appoint a different slate of electors after all. Not even close. Was Trump precluded from assuming office? Kicked out of office? He was impeached twice, the process ran its course, he wasn't removed or even deemed ineligible for the presidency again.

You mean the one in which Obama urged his VP, Biden, not to certify the results of the electoral college? The one in which Obama's former national security advisor, by that time back in his good graces, suggested that Obama declare martial law to force some kind of do-over?

Yeah, some things can't be explained away by "damn spellcheck!" Exactly. The virtues of small town America? Yeah, it's real nice if it's a resort town full of nice urban liberals in their second homes. 95% of American small towns are downright depressing.

The history of contested elections shows something we used to celebrate in America - an unbroken record of the peaceful transition of power. No president ever tried to stay on in office after his term ended and the results of the election showed that he was not reelected. Nor did any aggrieved loser try to use his party's influence in Congress to obtain a different result. - Nixon had the best ever case for fraud changing the results of an election (JFK's sketchy win in Illinois). He conceded and lived to fight another day. - Gore had a strong case that he was the duly elected president. And subsequent analysis shows that depending on how you counted Florida ballots, by some rules he won, by others Bush won. But the Supreme Court said "let the recounting stop" and he conceded. - Yes, certain Democrats questioned the Ohio vote in 2004, saying Kerry should have won. He conceded. - Yes, Hillary supporters said Russia (or Russians) interfered in the election through social media, etc., and that Trump benefited (and either colluded with them or at least welcomed that interference). She conceded. Trump has never conceded. He still insists, against all evidence (or lack thereof) that he did win. And he used every trick, legal or not, in the book to remain in office against the will of the people, even inventing some new tricks. Once again, he is unique. In a very bad way.

I have no idea whether this is a genetic XX or XY. All I know is that female bodybuilders of this type are obviously incredibly juiced up on steroids anyway. So ... who cares?

Biden Campaign in a panic over flight of 80 year old Jews. Story below.

I only mention this because I actually SAW THIS ON TV when getting ready for work this morning: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/irs-whistleblower-says-he-felt-handcuffed-during-hunter-biden-investigation/ On CBS. How much more mainstream can you get? Cue up the Fake Outrage Machine. There it is, an interview with the IRS whistleblower right in front of me on network news!

Right. And the contrast is with Ohio, where their fake electors (apparently actually listening to a lawyer, imagine that) put in a bunch of disclaimers, asserting that they are putting themselves forth as electors in the event that the "official" slate is rejected. Michigan? No such thing. They asserted in official filings that they are the duly elected electors of the State of Michigan.

Paul Ryan, who is pretty close to Jack Kemp 2.0, is now derided as a "RINO." That's where the Republican Party has gone.

I'm not saying "is constitutionally eligible to assume the presidency." I am saying that as a practical matter a man who refused to relinquish power despite having no accepted argument as to why he wasn't required to relinquish power should not ever be elected president again.

Again, remains to be determined. I am saying something very basic. It doesn't apply to DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence ... anyone else, including Biden. There is ONE guy in American history who tried to hold onto the Presidency despite being voted out of office, who tried to use all means - including extra-legal means - to extend his presidency when he had no right to do so. It is simply not comparable to any of the other shenanigans engaged in by politicians of all stripes. He is unique, and uniquely unsuited to ever hold that office again.

Yep, he is saying that. Even his defenders should admit that. (And this is coming from someone who does not think the video should be canceled.)

Not even close to a valid comparison. Biden announces student loan forgiveness. Courts say not so fast. So they hold off. Supreme Court shoots it down. Biden administration complies but says it is considering a different legal basis for a new loan forgiveness. That's government as usual. It is actually what the Trump Admin did with the so-called "Muslim ban." It was enjoined, they redid it, it was enjoined, then the Supreme Court said it was o.k. as redone. In the 2020 election case, the courts (including the Supreme Court) had shot down every single legal theory regarding claimed election fraud but the Trump administration continued to proceed by using intimidation and every cynical parliamentary tactic to undo the results.

I agree. So simple question. Agree or Disagree: Trump's endorsement of a clearly invalid legal theory that could have kept him in the presidency means that he should never hold that office again. Poke a Trumpie hard enough and he bleeds Q Anon.